Member Since: November 04, 2010

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123 To page: Go
  • February 22, 2014 at 7:45pm

    Brilliant denial, you just cling to your diploma and continue on flat out ignoring a decade of cooling. But thank you for your service, your prejudiced opinion was achieved honorably.

  • February 22, 2014 at 7:33pm

    You were actually sort of paying attention and I am sort of impressed. Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. To answer your question, Yes, but with a difference, we acknowledge that our view point is the by-product of faith mixed with tangible evidence and knowledge, and you appear to believe that your conclusions are acquired through the clarity of scientific study and therefore do not require faith, or its inverse function if you will, in order to espouse. That amounts to foolhardy denial.

  • July 17, 2013 at 8:19pm

    We can’t deny that most soldiers were christian and chose to have a cross memorialize their gravesites. Or that the visual depicted isn’t indicitive of the normal experience of those paying honor to fallen compatriots. Not to mention that for many it was their Christianity that gave them the determination to enlist or be drafted and sacrifice their lives for the good of their country.

    If I were an atheist I would perceive this as an illustration of the absurdity of Christian faith. What did his faith do for him? Was it in fact the collective Christianity of our nations leader’s that compelled them to risk the lives of our best in wars that became quagmire’s? I would be content to affix my own meaning and sense of irony, unless of course I was a stupid atheist and was simply looking for an excuse to feel oppressed by the majority.

    If I were a Jihadist Muslim I would see an image that represents my greatest hope for the great evil empire. May all her soldiers fall and be visited by those that remain behind.

    If I were a Jew I would see evidence of the greatest protector nation that ever existed, and the price she has been willing to pay to ensure every people yearning to be free had that opportunity. I would also see my common belief with peaceful Christians around me in the need for a Messiah, even if we don’t agree on whether He has already come or is yet to arrive.

    My point is, taking offense is a verb and the decision made by the offended moron.

  • July 13, 2013 at 1:04am

    Our family adopted a baby girl from Tonga in the South Pacific. In their hospital they simply smack the mothers if they scream and tell them to be quiet like they are children in church. Our birth mom, according to my wife who was there for the birth, was a champ, and didn’t make a peep. Obviously the product of training. The conditions were deplorable, and the rules were asinine, my wife had to bring toilet paper, bed sheets, towels, couldn’t use the electricity for fan in the 89 degree, full humidity weather, mosquitoes were relentless, and she even had to purchase a trash sack to dispose of the placenta. Practically heartless. Ahh the blessings of socialized medicine. Here we go…

  • February 22, 2013 at 9:16pm

    No joke, but there was a joke in it, funny…but true.

  • February 22, 2013 at 9:14pm

    Why does it matter, 20 days go by and she didn’t call the police? Apparently she was unaware of his lack of contact anyway. Very caring mother, who now is undoubtedly racked with guilt and trying to shift blame to a government agency for not making it possible for her to be awakened to the fact that her son is gone and she was completely unaware. No doubt indicative of the way he was raised and the actual reason for the general lack of knowledge that he was even missing. Meh!

  • February 22, 2013 at 8:50pm

    I am so thankful right now, I mean, if it wasn’t for you Big Bird, I was going to have to start flying with my husband on the same plane to our vacations. Whew! Dodged that bullet!

  • February 13, 2013 at 8:11pm


    As if it matters! Good hell, your thinking gives rise to even more evil logic such as…We should continually evaluate the value of any life based on their limitations, whether they were born with them or acquired them at a future date. Wheelchair bound after an accident? No one needs to live like that, take this pill…Morbidly obese with a flatulence issue, no one can survive that with their self esteem intact…You can’t even do your times tables? Why, let’s take a shower. What are those mommy? Why those are just really large pizza ovens sweetheart, by the way you failed math again this year, do you feel like a pizza? At what point is a fetus a life, when its viable (33 weeks is well past that cut-off point)? Your logic makes me ill. When are folks such as yourself ever going to absorb the reality that sometimes life and the choices we make while living have sometimes unavoidable consequences? Did you not watch the video of the guy born without legs and arms. What gives you the irrational notion that you are intellectually superior enough to predetermine the value of a developing life? Don’t bother answering that. I am regretting this post even before I click reply. Useless endeavor on my part. Ideologue!

  • February 6, 2013 at 9:40pm


    Discrimination due to a gene governing skin pigmentation is not the same as discrimination against a behavioral choice. Please don’t degrade the suffering of African Americans at the hands of bigoted morons in the social majority by equating their triumphs over evil with Homosexuals obtaining normal status in society by allowing their unfettered access to teenage boys on camp outs! Shame on you.

    Sexual preference is a choice (Prefer is a verb). If you would like to posit that a homosexual man has no choice but to be attracted to other males, I will take that statement and ask how as a parent can I trust a man, who has no control over his behavioral choices, to “camp” with my sons?

    Do you honestly believe that a Male human possessing a gene predisposing him to be sexually attracted to males has a switch that only allows his impulse when a potential target has reached the magical biological age of 18, making his behavior acceptable?

    Do you think or just regurgitate?

    Just as the Girl Scouts should not allow a Heterosexual man to go on camp outs with teenage girls, the Boy Scouts should maintain their ban on Homosexual men being intimately connected to and associating with teenage boys. Duh. It really is that simple, and you really are that daft, or at least genetically predisposed to dereliction of the frontal lobe.

  • February 6, 2013 at 6:45pm

    She is on the wrong side of youth, acting will be sporadic, national politics will ensure her lifestyle even when her face and body can’t.

  • February 4, 2013 at 2:03am


    Thank you. Starve these morons of our cash, charge them a fortune for water, and let their power over anyone shrivel on the vine. That it would even be a moral question on how to punish this monster who no doubt took his own daughters virginity and then killed her for giving it up, should be the reason we walk permanently away from these ties. Not one more penny.

  • January 29, 2013 at 7:14pm


    The woman’s body does belong to her and her alone, especially when she is choosing whether or not to protect herself from pregnancy during intercourse, which again is another choice afforded every woman. (Unless of course she is raped, but conservatives already “allow” for that contingency and there are rape victims who choose not to “punish” the new life growing inside of them regardless of the painful memory of the nature of its genesis. Once a new body has been created, whether by intention or accident, due to the plethora of decisions already executed by the mother, things change. The woman’s body is still hers but what of the new body being created?

    Does the body being developed belong to the fetus? If not at the moment of conception, at which point does the body belong to the fetus? When do human rights kick in; only when a person is “allowed” to be born by its birth mother? Premature births are happening at earlier and earlier times, and these tiny babies are kept alive through medicinal intervention. Do we use a benchmark for viability through medicine as a cutoff point by law? Does the mother’s right to choose continue even after the fetus has been removed from her body and laid in the corner of the operating room to die? Is this your cutoff to ensure the mother’s “rights” are not infringed?

    I choose to disagree.

  • January 12, 2013 at 7:03pm

    @ dadrocked

    I think Piers would have a higher number of “official” protesters if it didn’t require registering with the White House to do it.

  • January 6, 2013 at 12:00am

    If we are to push a Pro-Life ideology as a governing policy, we must address the issues of single parents, broken homes, fatherless children, wasted and irresponsible mothers and fathers, drug addicted parents and infants born addicted to the same drugs, and so on. In other words, if we are to have our way, and require the law of the land to reflect our values regarding the sanctity of life, and the rights of the individual, we have to address the environment to which these children are born.

    Abortion is and has been a tidy answer to all of these issues, and is in fact the go to argument when pleas to support woman’s rights fall in the face of our collective horror at the wanton destruction of life espoused by liberal talking heads.

    We know abortion is wrong, at least most of the time, if not all the time. So what do we do, stare down the morons who inadvertently and through irresponsible thinking created life and demand, regardless of their obvious deficiencies, demand they step up to the plate and responsibly care for their spawn? Duh, of course not. We turn our focus to a solution that actually works. Adoption. We make it smoother and simpler, and permanent. We make sure adoption is highlighted in our society and in our schools as not only normal, but wonderful, empowering, and sensible.

    And when the birth parents escape the fog of their fear, and change their minds toward the fantasy of only being happy once reunited with “their” child, we tell them no.

  • January 5, 2013 at 11:37pm

    @ godless,

    What? Abortion is in fact birth control, and overwhelmingly so. It is the “only way” left after all the stupid choices made by the contributing parents to erase the “problem” of their unwanted pregnancy.

  • December 30, 2012 at 12:19am

    I went to the web site and it requires registering to sign the petition. As if I need the White House to have my on any kind of short list! and I bet I am not the only one that felt that way. So here is my silent vote. Go home dim wit brit. “Hand gun crimes double since their ban in England…” And the irony of it all…his country is the reason the founding fathers knew we needed the 2nd Amendment! Because time and again, history shows, if any Government has enough power they will turn it on the citizens to get their way. Not here. The Government in this country works for us. Our private gun ownership ensures it.

  • December 25, 2012 at 8:27pm

    So, let me understand, if Satan was finally cast out of heaven in 1914, all the other stuff he has ever done on earth was done under the direction, knowledge and sanction of God the Father, whom Satan was freely able to visit before being kicked out? And if Satan was kicked out, that would support the theory that he is an actual entity. Does that mean that Jehovah’s Witnesses are able to proclaim that Satan is a creation of God, a child of god like the rest of us? Please clarify…

  • December 24, 2012 at 11:11am


    I could care less about your comment, it makes me nauseous. Literally. You know. Like, incredibly so.

  • December 24, 2012 at 11:02am

    Corrections! The RLDS now call themselves the Community of Christ. They remained when Brigham and the saints headed west because of a belief that the next prophet of the church should be Joseph Smith’s son not the Lead Apostle (Brigham Young.) As regards polygamy not being practiced until Brigham left, this is simply incorrect. Joseph Smith practiced polygamy before being martyred. The Mob had hoped his death would destroy the faith, when it was apparent that it didn’t, the saints were then threatened with violence, death, and the destruction of property (a scenario that played itself out only too recently in their history), thereby encouraging their exodus west.

  • December 16, 2012 at 1:25am

    Thank you 58. I’ve Wondered about that.

    Reagan during the Republican convention nominating George HW Bush for President said the purse strings belong to congress. The President can’t spend a dime without them. I was just questioning to myself, how much of Bush’s debt was generated by the democrats in congress. On to the midterms!

    Pelosi and Reid. Evil twin powers activate, form of a giant moron carrying a wet blanket for the economy.